Wikileaks once again has provided the proof positive to
unlock a mystery. It’s not the stuff of attention-grabbing headlines and
retweets, but it does illustrate how the US State Department can orchestrate
riots in a quiet Eastern European country. As an international observer of the
December 2010 elections in Belarus, I was witness to both the orderly vote and
the shocking riot. This is the story of Belarus and how dollars were used to
subvert and embarrass this peaceful constitutional republic.

1. Setting

Belarus in December is the ultimate winter land; a fair
Nordic forest nymph dressed in a thick, luxurious lilywhite cloak - for it is
much too cold to go naked. Outside the city, an endless white expanse meets the
eye, broken only by a few sturdy houses and a church. The lonely roads are
enlivened by white hares that leap from icy roadsides and flocks of wild geese
that transverse the cloudy welkin. All is white in this country, as if in order
to justify its name, for Belarus means the White Rus. The Rus were
the Viking states established in the Slav hinterland a millennium ago, and so
Belarus is forever connected to the Great Rus of Russia.

The people of Belarus are not very different from their
Russian neighbors but they do have their own character, just as the Northerners
of Yorkshire differ from the Southerners of Somerset. They are fair and calm,
peaceful and orderly, obedient and enduring. The sparsely populated Belarusian
borderland was a battleground between East and West for centuries; the last war
cost them one third of their population, the highest loss suffered by any
country in WWII. The capital of Minsk was completely destroyed, Fallujah-style,
by the Luftwaffe. Once upon a time, its forests and marshes trapped crack
divisions of the German SS; now they sit again in peace, healed by many
snowfalls.

After all this incessant white wilderness, Minsk is
surprisingly civilised and human-sized; it was rebuilt in the comfortable 1950’s
and refurbished fairly recently. The streets are neat and fit for pedestrians,
small cafés are made cosy with glowing fireplaces, and there are English
newspapers on every table. A large and festive Christmas tree marks the main
square, which has been turned into an ice rink for the holidays, and pretty
young girls in white skirts and red scarves skate the day through with smartly
dressed boys. The rink is open and free for all, just as in Scandinavia. Indeed,
Belarus is the East European counterpart of the Scandinavian socialist states of
yesteryear; but while the Swedes and the Danes are busy dismantling their social
systems, Belarus has so far resisted the drive toward privatization.

It will take you a long time before you spot your first
policeman, usually a simple traffic cop. There is no sign of a police state
here: no mysterious black cars, no furtive stillness, no Soviet-style drabness,
no post-Soviet garishness. The youngsters are stylish, friendly and open. The
streets are crowded, paved and clean. The President of Belarus, the man the US
State Department calls the last dictator of Europe, walks freely among
his people.

But what is a dictator these days? The epithets aimed at
world leaders are surprisingly consistent, but the words themselves have been
redefined. To earn the title of ‘dictator’, it seems that a leader need only
spurn the advice of the IMF. If a leader chooses not play along with NATO, he
may well qualify for the title of ‘bloody dictator’. We have been told that
Castro is a ‘dictator’. We have been told that Chavez is a ‘dictator’. We are
now being told that Ahmadinejad is a ‘bloody dictator’. Long-time thorns in the
flanks of US imperial might are eventually upgraded to ‘monster’ status, as were
Stalin and Mao. Belarus itself has one of these State Department titles: it is
to be called a ‘rebel state’. When the USSR was broken down into digestible
chunks, it was tiny Belarus that chose to keep the Soviet flag, the Soviet arms,
and the socialist ethos. Belarus was not as quick as other countries to cast off
what was stable and good within the Soviet system. While other countries
suffered under IMF-imposed privatization, Belarus took the slow and steady path
to intelligently upgrade and restore their industries and cities. End result:
Belarus is as up-to-date as any country in the East.

2. December 19, 2010

I was in Belarus to observe the Presidential election, and to
tell the truth I was expecting some sort of staged little event to mar the day.
The outcome of the election was in little doubt. The people were happy, fully
employed, and satisfied with their government. They were well aware of what had
happened when neighboring countries had embraced the IMF, and they felt no
ideological need to tread that same dark road. Some people, however, are more
motivated by dollars than patriotism, and these are the people I was expecting.
The pro-Western ‘Gucci’ crowd can always be counted on to protest the choices of
the majority. They protested in Iran after the election victory of Ahmadinejad.
They protested in Palestine when Hamas was voted into power. They
actually overturned the vote in nearby Ukraine in 2005, and the orange gangs
succeeded in stealing the presidency for five long years. If they cannot
convince the people with Western dollars, then they simply riot and try to take
it by force.

All day long I watched the people of Belarus queuing at their
election booths. I spoke to many of them. Their President Lukashenko is an East
European Chavez, who stubbornly sticks to the socialist way. A friend of Hugo
Chavez and the Castro regime, he gets his oil in Venezuela and Russia, does
business with the Chinese, and tries to maintain good relations with his
neighbours. The people know him, and know what to expect from him. Hardly
anybody knew the opposition candidates by name. There were official election
posters hanging in every election centre, and these posters carried the name and
photo of each candidate, but these strangers and their feel-good slogans could
not touch the national spirit.

The voting was as clean as any other European election, and
was attended by hundreds of international observers; no one noticed any
irregularities. Each person’s vote was secret, and they cast their ballots
without fear. Even most pro-Western analysts, like Alexander Rahr of Germany,
concurred: Lukashenko carried the elections with an astounding 80% of the
popular vote. Exit polls showed similar results. Like it or not: he won.

It was only after the news began to report the exit poll
results that the opposition forces in Minsk – perhaps some five thousand strong
- began to march from the main square towards the government offices. They
walked peaceably, and so did not attract much police presence. There were
certainly much fewer police on hand than what a similar march would draw in
London or Moscow. The government expected a rally at the square. They did not
expect these well-dressed people to begin storming the building where the votes
were counted! This mob of educated and well to do urbanites smashed the windows
and broke the doors in an effort to break into the building. It was clear to all
bystanders that this riot was anything but spontaneous and that this was a
determined attempt to destroy the ballots and invalidate the election.

The live broadcast of rioters forcing their way into the
building shocked the republic. The people of Belarus expect and demand an
orderly, law-abiding society. This is always the moment of truth for authority:
challenges from outside the law must be met with immediate and lawful force. The
police did their duty, waded into the violence and detained the rioters. But
Belarus is not China, and this was not Tiananmen Square. It was not even Seattle
or Gothenburg. There were no casualties; the whole event was comparable to the
kind of riot raised by
Manchester United, or say Luton fans after their defeat by York. Certainly
the thing was disgraceful; yet suddenly, as if on cue, my colleagues, my fellow
journalists in the press centre, began to send hysterical cables extolling the
dreadful bloodshed caused by the last dictator’s secret police. Thank God, the
Belarusians are too orderly for such excesses. Even the opposition Communist
party approved of sending in the riot police. A threat to an orderly election is
a threat to everyone; it is a threat to the basis of any democracy.

My cynical friend, the professor of local university and no
sympathiser of Lukashenko (the President is a boorish moron in his eyes) said
this to me: the opposition had to make a good show to justify all the grants
and subsidies. The dollars pour in from the State Department, the NED, from
Soros and the CIA in an effort to undermine the last socialist regime in Europe.
All this money keeps the opposition leaders in the style they are accustomed to,
but once in a while they are expected to show their mettle.

Wikileaks has now revealed how this undeclared cash flows
from US coffers to the Belarus “opposition”. In the confidential
cableVILNIUS 000732, dated June 12, 2005, an
American diplomat informs the State Department that Lithuanian customs detained
a Belarusian employee of a USAID contractor on charges of money smuggling. The
courier was arrested as she attempted to leave Lithuania for Belarus with
US$25,000. In addition, she admitted that had moved a total of US$50,000 out of
Lithuania on two prior trips.

In case it’s not obvious by now, these dollars are just the
tip of the iceberg of cash that flows from US taxpayers to fund the Belarus
opposition. A Lithuanian official boasted that the Government of Lithuania “uses
a variety of individuals and routes to send money to groups in Belarus,
including its diplomats”. Lukashenko has always
maintained that the US has spent millions of dollars to dismantle the government
of tiny Belarus. Western officials automatically denied it. The Western press
ridiculed it: BLOODY DICTATOR BLAMES OPPOSITION ON YANKEE MEDDLING. The
proof is written in a confidential cable from a US Embassy to the US State
Department. It is undeniable.

The Magic of Lukashenko

Why does the US need to pay people to oppose
Lukashenko? What is the secret behind Lukashenko’s charm? He was democratically
elected in 1994 just as the USSR was disintegrating. In a way, he was able to
transform a chaotic collapse into a graceful denouement. He stopped
privatization, he ensured full employment for everybody, he fought and defeated
organized crime; in short, he preserved order and maintained the existing social
network intact. For a visiting Westerner, Belarus is a rather neat and
well-functioning minor East European state, not very different from its Baltic
neighbors. But for an arrival from Russia or Ukraine, their immediate neighbors,
it is the Shangri-la of the post-Soviet development they could have had.
They, like Belarus, could have had clean streets, full employment, shops selling
local products, police that do not extort bribes, pensions for old people, and
economic equality.

Lukashenko stopped the kind of IMF privatization schemes that
had ruined Belarus’ neighbors. In Russia, a few cronies of then-President
Yeltsin (like the now-imprisoned billionaire Khodorkovsky) walked away with
whole industries, iron mines and oil basins. Much of it they sold to the Western
companies who raided the East in a rapacity unprecedented since Cortez’ visit to
America. While ordinary Russians lost their jobs, their homes, and their social
services, the super-rich oligarchs began shopping for real estate in Belgravia
and the Cote d’Azure, for big yachts and football teams. It was President Putin
who put a stop to this IMF-organized fire sale of assets and saved Russia, but
no one will ever forget the nightmare of the “awful Nineties”.

Organized crime is a big problem in the post-Soviet space.
Just last month Russian citizens read about a gang that had forced its rule upon
the prosperous Kuban district of Russia, raping and murdering at will for years,
the gangsters and the cops sharing alike in the crimes and the spoils. But in
Belarus, there is no organized crime, no Mafia-like secret structures. “The
gangsters ran away in the Nineties,” I was told by the natives. Policemen take
no bribes in Belarus, a feat still beyond the reach of any other ex-Soviet
state. Lukashenko achieved this police compliance by granting retired policemen
decent pensions, well above average, and by mercilessly ridding the service of
corrupt cops.

In Belarus, there are no oligarchs. Socialism is limited to
major employers; private property and private businesses are absolutely
respected. The local businessmen told me that there is little corruption, and
much less than in neighboring countries. There are plenty of prosperous people
but no super-rich; there are many nice cars on the streets of Minsk, but much
fewer and much fancier are the cars in Moscow, where it might be said you are in
a Bentley or on foot. The vast majority of cars in Minsk are modern European and
Japanese economy vehicles. The old Soviet cars are practically gone.

Belarus has no national, ethnic or religious strife. Catholic
and Orthodox churches share the same square; the many mosques and synagogues
were built centuries before multiculturalism appeared. The East was always
multicultural: Orthodox peasants, Catholic nobility, Jewish traders and Tatar
horsemen lived together in Belarus long before the 15th century when
this land was a part of the Great Duchy of Lithuania, then the greatest state of
Europe. The old Belarusian language was the language of the Duchy, and
Belarusian warriors – together with Polish and Russian soldiers – defeated the
crusaders on the fields of Grunwald 500 years ago.

The opponents of Lukashenko tried to play the ethnic card
that was so efficient in Ukraine and Lithuania at alienating traditional allies.
They promoted Belarus nationalism and the old Belarus language, but both turned
out to be non-starters. The opposition’s beatific vision of a Belarusian ethnic
revival is very poetic, like the revival of Welsh, but this practical people is
not willing to fight over it.

Lukashenko’s Soviet-style economy preserved the sources of
local production, and alongside the ubiquitous imports you will find that the
core staples are provided locally. Belarusian cheese, milk, bread and
vegetables are all organic and Russian visitors always buy and carry home as
much as they can carry of the delicious, healthy and inexpensive stuff. Their
industry also remained intact, even as the IMF shepherded their neighbors into
third world status with a speedy process of de-industrialization. Belarus still
produces everything from TV sets to tractors, from giant lorries to Ives Saint
Lauren-designed fashions.

Belarus has no political parties. This is not a case of one
big political party like in Russia, nor is it the good-guy/bad-guy dual party
system as in the US. No political parties at all. The parties are not forbidden,
but they just have not developed. This was one of the great ideas of Simone
Weil, the French post-Marxist philosopher and friend of T.S. Eliot, though she
would have them banned altogether.

Belarus represents an interestingly successful model of
economic development. It has reminded the world that a wise ruler can save a
country. This lesson is an especially timely one since the IMF has littered the
globe with bankrupt and insolvent countries. The world is now looking at the IMF
and other international investors with caution. Monetarism is bankrupt. Military
aggression, on which Bush relied, has failed. We live in the post-crisis era. A
search for other ways of development is now underway. Now people are starting
to think: isn’t there a better way? Belarus may lead the way.

One of Belarus’ major achievements is that it was able to fend off the large
international companies. During the 20 years of western raids around the world,
tiny Belarus was able to preserve its assets. This is a very important lesson
for many countries. Belarus may not have produced a single Abramovitch, but the
country is home to millions of rather content ordinary citizens.

The vast majority of the Belarusian people are content with
their lives. Their salaries are modest, on a par with neighboring Russia, but
they have no unemployment and they do not worry that their place of work will
get shut down. Their cities are clean, their food is inexpensive, the heating
and rent are heavily subsidized, and transport is well organized. They are not
subservient to the Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, the Pentagon, nor to the Masters
of Discourse. They are the cause of soul-searching for their neighbors, a living
proof that the Soviet Union did not have to be destroyed, that socialism can
work, and that it often works better than financial capitalism.

It is exactly for this reason that the bad guys wish to
destroy Belarus.

The country is isolated from the West: it is very difficult
for a Belarusian to go and visit his cousin in neighboring Poland or Lithuania
because the EC will not give them visas. Poland is especially hostile:
previously colonial masters of Belarus, the Poles view themselves as enforcers
of the West’s will in the East. The visas are extremely expensive by local
standards. The only international airport is practically empty; there are very
few flights in or out.

Relations with Russia are far from perfect. The Russian
oligarchs have struggled to squeeze loose Belarusian assets, industries and
pipelines. Lukashenko resisted the raiders from New York and Berlin and has no
intention of giving up the national jewels to raiders from Moscow. The result is
tension. While there is much to be said for a close alliance to Russia, Belarus
is well aware that the oligarchs lie somewhere behind the Russian smile. The
more Russia can muzzle the voracity of the oligarchs, the less suspicion there
will be to poison their natural affinities and mutual support.

For now, Lukashenko prefers to play a complicated game with
the EC, even discussing the possible entry of Belarus to the united Europe. It
is not impossible: economically Belarus is in much better shape than the
majority of East European states who are EC members.

Belarus has friendly relations with Venezuela and Cuba, with
China and Vietnam. It is a socialist country, but the socialism is soft, with
plenty of room for private enterprise and personal freedoms. Belarus has found new life in preserving and developing the
elements of socialism which in the early 1990s were most discredited. In the
wake of IMF despair, socialism suddenly pops back up with a confident gait, in
new clothes and carrying with it a new hope. It is wonderful that Belarus has
managed walk this tightrope between freedom and responsibility in the midst of a
disintegrating union and foreign interference. The lesson for neighboring
Russians is especially valid, and even poignant. The Russian political analyst
Sergey Kara Murza has said that the Belarusian system could serve as the pattern
for the resurrection of the socialist state.

His words reminded me of the story of the Mosque of Cristo de
la Luz. When King Alfonso VI (as the legend hath it) rode into Toledo in triumph
in 1085, his horse knelt before the door of the mosque. Curious, a shaft of
light guided the king to a secret chamber where he discovered that a candle had
burned continuously behind the masonry throughout three and a half centuries of
Muslim rule, illuminating a hidden crucifix. It was a clear sign that
Christianity would not fail return even after a long, dark time. If and when
socialism will be victorious again, the victors will discover the shining lamp
of socialism still burning in Belarus.